The Green Revolution In Brazil
Lessons And Consequences
Eswar
Anandapadmanaban
[email protected]
Jordan Benjamin
[email protected]
Mario Contreras
[email protected]
Alexis Cuellar
[email protected]
Tiffany Tao
[email protected]
Daly Wettermark
[email protected]
1950 - 1970: Slow Growth - Horizontal Expansion
•
As the Green Revolution began in the rest of the world, Brazil had no real changes in technology
•
Colonial economy
•
Exported cash crops: coffee, cotton, sugar, etc.
•
Small subsistence sector for domestic market
•
Still a net importer of crops
•
Horizontal expansion due to incorporation of more land
•
No change in yield per unit land
•
5.4% annual food production increase between 1950 & 1959
•
82.5% increase in agricultural land between 1950 & 1970
•
Investment in roadways
•
Better infrastructure for transporting goods
1970s - 1990s: Modernization
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
(EMBRAPA) founded in 1973
1980s Transition to Minimum price guarantees
○
Did not encourage diversification
○
●
●
●
Diversification of Crops
Higher Yield Crops
Soil Development, Deacidification with lime
1970s: Large Scale (But Inefficient) Military
Intervention
●
●
Credit for Agricultural Development and Expenses
Cheap Land For Agriculture (continues to this day)
○
●
Issues with deforestation, fires, and wildlife
disruption
Much land given to poor who cannot capitalize
○
Top 1% of farms produce > 50% income
○
Bottom two-thirds produce 3.27% of income
Resulted in useless government
agricultural stockpiles
1990s: Market Destabilization and Collapse
○
Government intervention declines as
markets become unstable and collapse
○
Not entirely economic in nature
1990s - Present: Post-Modernization
•
•
•
•
•
•
Government intervention once again, but with a long term focus
Subsidized financial credit after economic crash
•
Mainly for capital financing and purchasing modern equipment
Continued agricultural research
•
Particularly by universities to increase arable land
More involved in international markets
•
Foreign investors bought out Brazilian farms
•
Displaced Brazilian workers
More crops grown for biofuels
•
Soy bean/corn
Worked on stabilizing prices
•
Establishing a fair competitive market.
What was done wrong?
•
As technology increased output the market was flooded
•
Allowing foreign investors to take control of large farming conglomerates
•
Large corporate-owned farms make it difficult for small farmers to keep up
economically
•
Price stabilization efforts ended up causing unnecessary surpluses of some
crops
What was done right?
●
Government investment in roads helped move crops to the markets
faster and at a lower cost.
●
EMBRAPA research
○
○
○
○
○
●
Increased yield on existing amount of land
No-till agriculture
High-yield crop varieties
Became highly efficient in producing soy and other cash crops for export
Conversion of barren soil into arable soil expanded usable land
Eventually, subsidies for small farmers allowed them to invest in new
technologies and keep up with larger farms.
How can we do it better in the future?
New innovations should come with regulations to prevent market failure.
Make more of an effort to preserve natural species when land is converted
to be used for agriculture.
Don’t create surpluses just because we have the capability. Instead, focus
on sustainability and and producing a full spectrum of food for the country’
s own people
Sources
•
•
•
•
•
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/1/1/4
http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/pdf/2048-7010-1-4.pdf
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2010.512458
#aHR0cDovL3d3dy50YW5kZm9ubGluZS5jb20vZG9pL3BkZi8xMC4xMDgwLzAzMDY2MTUwLjIw
MTAuNTEyNDU4QEBAMA==
http://www.brazil4africa.org/wpcontent/uploads/publications/working_papers/IRIBA_WP02_What_Explains_The_Intensification_and_
diversification_of_Brazil's_Agricultural_Production_and_Exports.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/849059/err137_reportsummary.pdf